(from Greek eklektikos, “selective”), in philosophy and theology, the practice of selecting doctrines from different systems of thought without adopting the whole parent system for each doctrine. It is distinct from syncretism—the attempt to reconcile or combine systems—inasmuch as it leaves the contradictions between them unresolved. In the sphere of abstract thought, eclecticism is open to the objection that insofar as each system is supposed to be a whole of which its various doctrines are integral parts, the arbitrary juxtaposition of doctrines from different systems risks a fundamental incoherence. In practical affairs, however, the eclectic spirit has much to commend it.

A philosopher, no less than a statesman, may be eclectic not on principle but because he perceives the intrinsic merit of doctrines that happen to have been advanced by opposite parties. This tendency is naturally most apt to manifest itself when established systems are losing their novelty or revealing their defects as changes of historical circumstance or scientific knowledge occur. From the beginning of the 2nd century BC, for instance, a number of philosophers professing to be attached to long-established schools—the Greek Academy, the peripatetics, or the stoics—were ready to adopt views from other schools; and Roman philosophers, in particular, to whom all Greek philosophies were enlightening, often avoided rigid partisan commitments, which even the Greeks themselves were abandoning. (Cicero was the eclectic par excellence.) It is clearly pointless to group the numerous ancient eclectics together as if they formed an eclectic school. In 19th-century France, however, Victor Cousin, a proponent of Scottish metaphysics, adopted the name éclectisme as a designation for his own philosophical system.